Oncons cious Cerebrati on in History. 



AN ADDRESS 
READ before; the 



Kansas Society of the Sons of the American Revolution. 

BY 

GUSTAVUS FRANKLIN KIMBALL, 

AT THE STATE HOUSE, TOPEKA, KANSAS, APRIL 19. 1899. 



PRINTED BV REQUEST OF THE SOriETY. 



Unconscious Cerebration in History. 



AN ADDRESS 



READ BEFORE THE 



Kansas Society of the Sons of ttie American Revolution. 



AT THE STATE HOUSE, TOPEKA, KANSAS, APRIL 19, 1899. 




This paper was read before the Kansas Society of Sons of the American 
Revolution not without some doubts as to its reception, and hence the apolog-y 
with which it opened and which is retained. The paper did not fail to mee^ 
with some criticism, but not altogether as expested. The greatest and almost 
only objection made has been that Gen. John A. Logan was given some credit 
for the abolition of slavery that more properly belonged to William Lioyd 
Garrison, Wendell Phillips and Charles Sumner. There is a shade of humor in 
this criticism. The failure to comprehend the thought of the writer is evi- 
dent. Not a particle of approval of Logans antebellum course was intended^ 
His well defined record on the slavery question was thought to afford a perti 
nent illustration of "unconscious cerebration" in United States History. John 
A. Logan, in and out of Congress, and until some months after the breaking 
out of the civil war, had been a most subservient tool of the slave power. He 
was probably more responsible for the so called "Black Laws' of Illinois than 
any other one person. The extremists of the south had been give ample reason 
to believe that he was and would remain in sympathy with their cause. It 



was suppased that he represented a very considerable northern element. He 
made no attempt to correct this impression until weeks and even months -after 
such democratic leaders as Stanton and Douglas had declared their devotion 
to the Union 

Very few are now ignorant of the fact that at the outbreak of the wa ^ 
Log"an's sympathies were all with the south, and that it was )nly after the most 
persistent efforts on the part of Stephen A. Doug-las, in which he exhausted 
argument and even threats that Logan was induced to declare for the Union. 
Even then room is left for a possible ungenerous suspicion. No one imagined 
the war would be so serious. It was predicted that it would be over in ninety 
days. Douglas was the great democrat of the state. Logan stood next in or- 
der of precedence. Douglas died June 3 unexpectedly. This left a vacancy 
in the United States Senate. What influence this had may not be known. 
But the Rubicon once crossed, Logan threw his whole soul into the Union cause. 
It was not his nature to do otherwise. He dazzled the army and the country 
by his dash and vigor, but, according to the evidence of the late C.A. Dana, in 
papers recently published, written while he was assistant secretarj'- of war, 
and while with Grant at Vicksburg, Logan was greatly overrated if not as a 
' fifhter, certainly as a leader, in any such sense as Grant or Lee were leaders. 

W« admit having little admiration for the class of men to which Logan 
belonged. He had little of that devotion to principle that gave character to 
Wendell Phillips on the one extreme, and Wm.L. Yancey on the other. He was 
simply a machine politician and a njachine soldier, — a gattling- gun soldier if 
one chooses. But he had no such qualities as go to make the memory of Lincoln 
and Grant and Robert E. Lee a benediction to all, both north and south, who 
are willing to let the past rest in peace. 

No merit is claimed for chis paper. If there is anything of value herein, 
it appears in the effort to show that the struggle in which we are now engaged, 
was not sought by this nation, but that, once in^-olved, any turning back would 
be cowardly, if not infamous. There are those who saw only virtue in the in- 
terference of this nation to prevent the extirpation of the Cuban people. 

Some of these men are now lining up in history alongside the tories of 
the revolution and the blue light federalists of the second war with Great 
Britain. Instead of peace their influence has been to prolong the war. Many 
tories were good men; many blue light federalists were sincere and honest: 
many "Anti-Imperialist Leaguers" are now just as sincere. Perhaps they may 
yet come to see that they are just as mistaken now as their protypes were in 
their days. They fail to tell how, or when, or where a halt could have been 
made. Humanity's call in the Philippines was asurgent as that in Cuba, and in 
both it is probably slight as compared with that which may soon come to us' 
unless Asia is saved from the ravishment of continental Europe. It at least 
seems possible that it may be the destiny of England and America -to prevent 
this in the name of humanity. If this shall prove to be the result we shall 
find the subject of this paper illustrated anew, and again realize the truth of 
what our own "Ironqxtili/' has expressed when he says: 

"States like men, 
Have destinies that take them — 
That bear them on, not knowing why or how. 
Office of 
Kimball pAMrLY News, 
Genealogical and Historical Monthly. 

IVIay 22, 1899. G.F.KIMBALL. 

KIMBALL PRlNT:Ni^i.50.J NORTH TOPEKA, KANSAS' 



•'How often do events, as if by chance, come unexpectedlv to pass, for 
which not one had even dared to hope." — Terence. 

As the dimensions of the tree are not always regulated by the size of 
the seed, so the Consequences of things are not always proportionate to the 
apparent magnitude of those events that have produced them. Thus the 
American Revolution, from which little was expected, pi-oduced much; but the 
French Revolution, from which much was expected, pi-odueed little. — \jolton.. 



■.-■^»^^®^^!;«^-^• 



Mr. President and (ienti.emrx; 

On this anniversary of the battle of 
Lexington, as well as that of the dec- 
laration of peace that followed the 
clo.se of the seven years of war, natur- 
ally it might be expected that any ad- 
di-ess delivered before this Society 
would dwell largely upon the events 
pertaining to the opening daj^s of 
the American Revolution. Certainly 
this would be most -appropriate, but 
as there are others present who will 
do full justice to the anniver.sary oc- 
ca.sion. I purpose leaving- that field to 
them alone. 

I have preferred to touch upon 
some other phases of more general 
history, cherishing a hope that possibly 
some profit may result in view of the 
existing condition of affairs in our own 
young, but historjf making country. 

Permit me to add, however, at the 
very outset, that I do not feel abso- 
lutely secure in the position I have 
taken, or to be more definite, in some 
of the illustrations that I have at- 
tempted. 

If, therefore, any apology were nec- 
essarj'^ for any portion of^this paper, I 
prefer to make it at the beginning. I 
say this because I do not expect it to 
meet the approval of all. Then, it is 
possible, that by a stretch of the ijnag- 
ination, if one be so disposed, it may 
appear to trench upon the forbidden 
ground of both polities and religion. 



So I wish to aver at this time, that in 
any sense that reasonably can be con- 
templated by our constitution or rules, 
nothing of the kind is intended. 

Really I have no thought that there 
can be any intent to debar allusion to 
either religion or polities, in the liber- 
al use of these terms, in papers or dis- 
cussion that may come before this so- 
ciety. In saying- this much if I could 
have the least reference to dogmatic 
sectarianism, in the one ca.se, or to 
partisan bigotrj^ in the other, there 
could be no doubt of its being a viola- 
tion of the spirit of this society. But 
such is not the ease. 

As a matter of fact religion, in some 
form is, and always hat been, the hand- 
maid of civilization. Yes, more, it is in 
fact the handmaid of barbarism the 
stage next lower than that of a crude 
civilization. 

So, too, politics is in truth the hand- 
maid of government, even in govern- 
ments of low order, unless every per- 
son or subject is absolutely subservient 
to the will of one ruler. The higher 
the form of government the more of 
politics there must be in it, such real 
politics being the science of govern- 
ment itself. 

Now do not imagine that I propose 
an essay upon these subjects, not even 
in the highest sense of the term. I 
have simply made this introduction in 
order, perhaps to disarm possible criti- 
cism. 



I consider the Sons of the American 
Revolution as essentially and intensely 
a historical societj'. It may be that to 
some this simply means a sketch here, 
and a record there, of Lome man or 
some event in which one has a person- 
al interest. To some it may mean only 
a record of oattles foiight and won, or 
foug-ht and lost, of deeds of valor, of 
of chivalrous acts, of heroic ventures 
and marvelous escapes. Finally it may 
mean a record of military victory, a 
change of government, the birth of 

liberty. 

Now all this is history, one phase of 
history, the most common phase of 
history. But it is not higher history. 
It is not a record of that subtile g-rowth 
of humanity from a lower to a higher 
life that we call civilization, such as 
cannot easily be portrayed in words. 
It is surface or primary history. It'is 
not the philosophy of history, whi(?h is 
about all there is to history beyond 
the quality it possesses of affording- 
interest and amusement to the reader, 
and little if any real worth to the 
thorough student. There is more to 
history than mere romance. 

A bit of canvas and a variety of pig- 
ments do not constitute a picture. The 
canvas may be finely wroug-ht and the 
colors brilliant in their intensity, there- 
fore interesting and attractive, but 
there is no artistic spirit seen until the 
artist has added his skill. So it is with 
historic canvas. The groundwork and 
the coloring must be such that great 
principles underlying- national growth 
shall stand out to be seen and read in 
the age.« yet to come. To write such 
history admits of no prevarication, no 
duplicity, no prejudice, but a devotion 
to iruth, with the rare ability to ana- 
Ij'ze authorities and comprehend mo- 
tives and purposes not always capable 
of explanation. There have not been 
many such svriters of histoi-y. 

It is said that an English lord once 
remarked to his son whose duty was to 



entertain his invalid father; "Read me 
no history. It is all, all false." The 
different lights in %vhich historians por- 
tray the working out of events, and 
the part that man takes in that work, 
are often so contradictory that no one 
need wonder that men like this Eng-- 
lish noble are found to distrust all 
written history. Evidently the great- 
est task of the impartial historian is 
not the mere writing of facts, but the 
work of sifting the true from the false. 

Some of the best writers have held 
that the historian ought only to state 
facts leaving the conclusions to be 
drawn from them to the student alone. 
If this were done oftener there would 
be less sifting to do on. the part of lat- 
er historians, and less of prejudice be 
engendered. 

At a recent meeting of this associa- 
tion I took occasion, briefly to com- 
ment upon some features of American 
history as we have it — this surface his- 
tory to which I have referred, and to 
comment iipon the injustice done to 
some heroes of the American Revolu- 
tion, and to enter complaint at the un- 
deserved honors heaped upon some who ' ' 
were not heroes. 

It was in this connection that our , 
fellow associate, Mr. Scott, remarked, I 
that, after all, it is Kot so material 
that just credit be given to the indi- 
idual, as to know that the principle 
involved in the issue has been gained. 
With this proposition we cheerfully 
agree. . 

It is a mooted question among his- ] 
torians, whether it is man who makes 
history or history that makes the man. 
I shall not attempt to discuss it in any 
way. In the philosophic sense man 
sinks into nothingness in either case. 
The man is nothing, the principle ev 
erything. But what is the principle, 
and why do we stop to deal with the 
individual? These are the questions 
I now wish to consider. 



Whatever ma>' be said as to the crea- 
tion of history, I mean that living' es- 
sence of prog-ressive civilization — the 
individual is the instrument used, co.n- 
sc'ously or unconsciously, by God, Fate, 
Providence, or whatever term may be 
used todesignate that unseen and in- 
comprehensible power that conti'ols 
"the universe, and directs the destinies 
of nations •often times into channels 
least expected by the most astute, the 
most righteous, and supposedly the 
most inspired of men. 

It this position is sound, it then does 
become, in reality, a matter of impor- 
tance whether the individiial, living or 
dead has the credit he deserves. The 
living man may be supposed to act 
under orUinai'y circumstances, up to 
his convictions of duty, and on a line 
parallel with his g'eneral intelligence, 
whether it be Nebuchadnezzar feeding- 
upon grass, Simeon »Styiites wasting 
thirty j^ears upon a monument, or Tar- 
quenado at the Inquisition. But 
whether honest of purpose, or not, 
thd follies and errors of the dead are 
to be avoided as well as those of the 
livmg. The men from whom we ex- 
pect heroic deeds have a right to' be- 
lieve that the honors they win will not 
be stolen by others. The dead are the 
models to which the living look as 
worthy to be copied, or as examples bo 
be shunned. It is important, there- 
fore, that we have a correct estimate 
of those "vho take an active part in 
the making of history, not entirely as 
a matter of justice to them, but for 
the benefit of the existing generation. 
The light of the past is the guiding 
star of mo5t people, and if it be a false 
or distorted light it is not strange that 

many ai'e led astray. 

Now if there is anything to this 
point. I wish to illustrate it fuither by 
a few examples. At the meeting of 
this society above referred to I briefly 
mentioned the fact that nearly all our 
1 written histories, 'including our school 



histories, name Horatio Gates as the 
hero of the battle of Saratoga. I shall 
not enlarge upon this at this time 
further than to state in general terms' 
that Gen. Gates was really one of the 
most incompetent of our Revolutionary 
generals, and one always suffering 
from petty jealousies. 

His unworthy ambition induced him 
to cruelly rob Gen. Schuyler of honors 
that belong'ed to him. No purer patriot 
than Phillip Schuyler is mentioned in 
American History. Whether as citizen, 
statesman, or soldier, his character 
was one to challenge admiration. The 
plans of the campaigm to entrap Bur- 
goyne were largely his. Gates had no 
part in them. Yet ne was able to se- 
cure the appointment of ranking officer 
of the American army a short time be- 
fore the bat' le and thereby to reap the 
fruits that rig"htfully belonged to oth- 
ers. 

General Gates took no active part in 
the battle of Saratoga. If he did not 
sulkjin his tent, he lounged there and 
left the fighting to his generals and 
soldiers. His jealousy of Arnold whose 
heroic qualities had displayed renewed 
vigor at Stillwater, had caused his re 
lief from duty, and therefore he had no 
command when the battle began. But 
Arnold could not stand idly by and see 
the patriot army waver and give way 
for the want of leadership, and so as a 
volunteer he rushed to the rescue, 
and he and Daniel Morgan became the 
actual heroes of Saratoga. 

The pusillanimity of Gates made him 
as willing to steal the honors of Arnold 
and Morg-an on this occasion, as he had 
been to rob Schuyler of merits that 
were his. 

Why, then, were the earlier writers 
of our history willing to pervert the 
truth that later historians have made 
clear? The answer is found in the 
simple fact that Benedict Arnold the 
traitor was the hero of Saratoga. 



Our narrow, big-oted and sometimes 
over zealous historians of that day 
could never persuade themselves, after 
he became a traitor, to g-ive Benedict 
Arnold credit for any good thing- done 
before or afterwards. It was all the 
more ag'g'ravating' for them to admit 
that Arnold won the battle of Saratoga 
holding no official command, because 
that was the turning of the tide — the 
decisive battle of the war. It was hard 
to admit that the traitor Arnold, had 
in all probability saved the cause of 
the revolutionary patriots. 

But to disguise the truth is not the 
pi-oper way to write histoi-y. It is not 
history at all. And yet, until within 
the last few years, at least, our revolu- 
tionary histories have been full of such 
conceits. Probably no one can be 
found, in the least degree, to apologize 
for the overwhelming error of Benedict 
Arnold. Nothing can palliate his crime 
of treason. But there is an old saying 
that the devil should have his due, and 
so should Benedict Arnold. He was 
one of the ablest generals of the revo- 
lution, and stood next to Gen. Greene 
in military capacity and in the confi- 
dence of Washington. If he was a 
traitor he is not the only one who 
would have betrayed the patriot cause. 
It is more than probable that Gates 
himself, under conditions similar to 
to those under which Arnold was 
placed, would have been no better. Cer- 
tain it is that up to this period Arnold 
had shown greater devotion and had 
endured more sacrifices for the patriot 
cause than Gates. 

Gen. Charles Lee was a more con- 
temptible traitor than Arnold. His 
schemes to supplant Washington be- 
gan almost as soon as the latter was 
appointed commander of the American 
forces. But the traitor General Lee 
had the skill to conceal his duplicity, 
and until recently, about all that was 
really known of his traitorous at- 
tempts we learn from the slight cen- 



sure given him by Wa.shington at Mon- 
mouth, and his temporary suspension 
from service. More recently letters 
from his own hand have come to light 
wherein he deliberately proposed to 
betray the American Army into the 
hands of General Howe and only a 
change of plans by the American gen- 
erals prevented its consummation. 

The actions of the Continental Con- 
gress were often incomprehensible, 
and no subsequent light has made them 
quite clear. The patience of Washing- 
ton was often taxed. His greatness 
nowhere shows to better advantage 
than in his dealings with this erratic 
body. "Friends at Court" appear to 
have had remarkable influence. Gates 
was made by them. Gen. Schuyler 
was one of their victims. Arnold was 
another, but without the saving condi- 
tions that surrounded Schuyler. De- 
spite his great record in Canada, at 
Hei-kimer and wherever a deadly con- 
flict was on, Arnold was the victim of 
persecution and misrepresentation. He 
was aggravated to a needless degree 
by his enemies, and that he might 
have been influenced to some extent 
by his wife, who was in sympathy with 
the tcries is altogether probable, but 
none of this can be urged in his de- 
fense. But General Charles Lee had 
no reason for his conduct, except a 
mean jealousy and desire to supplant 
Washington. The injustice done to 
Arnold was not allowed to die with 
him. ,Our prejudiced historical writers 
have always portrayed him in the most 
offensive light. As a child he is made 
to appear cruel, delighting in tortur- 
ing insects and animals, playing truant 
at school, and growing up in ignorance. 
There is little foundation for all this. 
His childhood averaged well with that 
of other boys. His education was fair 
to say the least. He wrote and spoke 
well and had some knowledge of Lat- 
in. This much at least is due to Bene- 
dict Arnold. That he suffered mental 



ag-ony in after years is well known. 
His repentance was deep and sincere, 
as shown by the pains he took to edu- 
cate his sons so that his name might 
to some extent be redeemed. And they 
iiived to do him honor. 

The name of another revolutionary 
hero I shall mot fail to mention. His 
heroism was not like that of Arnold's 
before his treason, but it was as patri- 
otic, and was never tarnished by treas- 
on nor cowardice. Yet this name is ob- 
scured in American History. It would 
not be easy omitting- the names of 
Washington and Franklin, to say who 
did more for the revolutionary cause 
than Thomas Paine. And yet his name 
has been seldom mentioned by the 
winters of popular American History, 
and then as one to be treated with op- 
probrium. And all this because he was 
not a believer in the orthodox religion 
of that day and of this. Unfortunate- 
ly much of American History, espec- 
ially that of an early day was written 
by narrow sectarian preachers, who 
seemed to have held theories similar to 
those held by promoters of the inquisi- 
tion, and so evei'ything- necessary must 
be distorted to serve their purpose. 
The truth was withheld where it did 
not line up with their ideas. If any 
thing seemed lacking to make a lively 
incident, some myth was invented like 
that of Parson Weems about Washing- 
ton and his hatchet. Or Arnold must be 
made to torture dumb animals, or sto- 
ries made up of Connecticut blue laws 
that prohibited a man from kissing his 
wife on Sundays. And many there are 
who believe these fictions and cherish 
them as interesting f satures of Ameri- 
can history. 

The revolutionary period developed 
many heroes and statesmen. They 
wei-e by no means of one mind, but 
while Hamilton and Jefferson differed, 
no one dares question the patriot- 
ism and honest purpose of both. But 
the great democrat of the revolu- 



tionary period was not Jefferson, nor 
Madison, nor Franklin. Remember 
I do not use the name democrat in the 
modern party sense. The one person 
who had a clearer perception, of the 
rights of man, than any other of the 
early American patriots was probably 
Thomas Paine. Without any reference 
to his religious convictions, no man of 
that age foresaw so clearly the possi- 
ble development of the democratic idea 
— the right of man to govern himself — 
as did Thomas Paine. The influence 
of no man of that age was more far 
reaching, or is more felt at this day, 
unconscious as we may be of the fact. 

And yet the name of Paine does not 
figure conspicuously in our common 
histories. As intimated before, much 
of our history has been written simply 
to unveil what the writers desired to 
show and to conceal what they did not 
care to make known. If these same 
writers could have obscured the names 
of Jefferson and of Franklin, whose 
religious views were not greatly differ- 
ent from those of Paine, they would 
probably have shared the same fate. 
Fortunately for them and for the coun- 
try, they both were many sided men. 
They both shone with marvelous 
brilliancy along too many lines of use- 
fulness to permit their namps to be ob- 
scured. 

But enough in relation to individ- 
uals. So far we have dealt solely with 
what we termed surface history. We 
might compare this feature of history, 
and it is about all the average reader 
understands by the term, with our 
earthly body that exists only for a 
time, and then passes away. But as 
there is more to human life, as is gen- 
erally understood, than the mere body, 
so 'there is a living spirit— a soul in 
history as in human life. We call it 
philosophy of history It is the re- 
sultant effects of time and human ef- 
fort. It is the birth and growth of 



events without .special relation to indi- 
vidual human effort. It is to this that 
I now call attention. 

It would seem to matter little what 
the individual does, or whether his 
memory is preserved at all, so far as 
concerns results. Events seem to de- 
develop regardless of human agency, 
sometimes as contemplated, and often 
directly the opposite. The fact is that 
civilization has seldom been a product 
of premeditated design. This thought 
long ago found expression in the old 
adage that "Man proposes, but God 
disposes." A hurried glance into the* 
past shows that civilization has steadi- 
ly progressed westward, fii-st finding- a 
centre in one place then in another. 
One readily recalls Alexandria, Con- 
stantinople, Venice, Bruges, London. 
It will be noted that these have all 
been consecutively, the great centers 
of commerce. Civilization has followed 
lines of trade, for the obvious reasdn, 
that the wants of mankind, supplied 
only by trade, are the foundations of 
civilization. These wants consist of 
physical and mental necessities, which 
include also the spiritual needs of hu- 
manity. Trade meets these physical 
wants and religion in some form, the 
spiritual or mental. 

In civilization where the imagination 
is the active mental element, this reli- 
gion will naturally be fanciful. It ap- 
peals to the curiosity, to faith, to the 
love of the marvelous^ to necromancy 
and even to the vagaries of the alchem- 
ist. 

As the average mind grows stronger 
and more practical the religious or 
worshipful idea of mankind, grows 
stronger also, and becomes more or 
less based in intellectual thought. 

But this is a line we have neither 
time nor disposition to follow further 
than it illustrates Dur subject. At the 
outset we said that religion is the 
handmaid of civilization, and that civ- 
ilization is the event of history. Now 



this handmaid is often, as justice is por- 
trayed, quite blind. In treating of the 
human brain the physician will dis- 
course to us about "unconscious cere- 
bration." The philosophical historian 
may, and indeed often does the same 
thing. Hence he is often compelled to 
notice how apt the plans of men are to 
miscarry. It is the unexpected that 
happens. We have made no distinction 
between the religious and the moral 
purpose that has most to do with ad- 
vancing civilization. There are few 
men of prominence in the active work 
of life who do not claim to be actuated 
by a moral purpo.se. With a civilized 
people moral qualities go hand m hand 
with physical energies. One writer of 
political science has said that the pre- 
dominance of a moral purpose in poli- 
tics is always a portentous phenome- 
non under a constitutional g-overnment. 

Now let us glance briefly at some 
examples of human development for 
the purpose of seeing how frequently 
the "best laid plans of mice and men 
gang aft aglee," 

In one of his lectures on the growth 
of civilization, M. Guizot remarks on 
the revolutions that took place during 
the sixteenth and seventeenth centur- 
ies, that if the men most active in pro- 
ducing them had been con.scious of the 
results to follow their action, there 
would have been no such revolutions. 
Other historians have remarked to the 
same effect, so that to some degree it 
may be said that in history making 
the law of negative prevails. Let us 
cite a few examples. It will be nec- 
essary to refer mostly to nations older 
than our own. We have ourselves not 
made much history. We are to 3 young. 
Probably we have made a good be- 
ginning and may afford a few youth- 
ful examples. 

We beg'in by referring to the grant- 
ing of Magna Charta. And right here 
we also strike one of the falsities of 
history. It is usually represented that 



the Great" Charter was g-ranted as a 
concession to the people. This is the 
popular idea still, but is by no means the 
fact. If either King- John or his barons 
could have foreseen i-esults, there would 
have been at Runnymade, no demand 
for the charter by the barons on the 
one hand, and none granted by the 
king- on the other. Neither party had 
any conception of events that were to 
follow. It affords a fine sample of un- 
conscious cerebration in history. It 
was destined to weaken, and finally to 
practically destroy the prerog-atives of 
both kings and barons. 

Mag-ua Charta was forced from John 
by his barons purely in their cwn in- 
terests. It was at the time a victory for 
the aristocracy. The people were mere 
hewers of wood and drawers of water. 
Neither king- nor barons cared more for 
the people than for their cattle. The 
king- was pressing- the barons and they 
resented it. The barons rebelled. The 
people had no part in it. They were 
mere vassals, serfs to be bartered and 
sold with the lands they tilled if it was 
transferred. They were without rep- 
resentation in tlie g-overnment. It was 
a later king- who rebelled against the 
encroaching" power of the lords, who 
took advantag-e of the provisions found 
in the g-reab charter which had lain 
dormant more than a hundred years, 
and called the people :o his aid to sup- 
press the movement of the barons to 
usurp the whole power of government. 
It was not 'till then that a parliament 
of the people was instituted. From 
that time on the power of both loi'ds 
and kings began slowly to decline. 
And thus was England's greatest revo- 
lution an unpremeditated event. It 
was not only the greatest of English 
revolutions, but the greatest known to 
civilization. 

It is by no means our purpose to dis- 
cuss the general effect of the great re- 
ligious Reformation of the sixteenth 
century. Certainly Martin Luther con- 



templated no such results as followed. 
Even if he had counted upon the build- 
ing up of a i-eligious hierachy in compe- 
tition with that of Rome, he would have 
stood horrified at the thought that out 
of his reformation there would spring 
up widespread infidelity. And yet this 
was one result of the great reformation . 
There is little doubt today that the 
skepticism of France and of some other 
portions of continental Europe, may be 
traced to the reaction of the extreme 
teachings of many of the early pro- 
testing reformers. The simple fact has 
often been a matter of comment and 
regret among religious peoples. What 
may have been the influence of this 
skepticism upon civilization is not for 
us to say. Such results were surely 
far from those intended, but that they 
followed has been held by many learned 
thinkers. It has also been observed 
that this so called spirit of infidelity 
prevails largely among the most in- 
tellectual communities who claim the 
need of a more satisfying religious be- 
lief than is offered by any extreme sec- 
tarian creed, and that therefore more 
liberal and more rational forms of wor- 
ship have grown up more in har- 
mony with this enlightened age. W'e 
instance this as a historic feature 
neither to alfirm nor to deny its truth, 
but only to illusti-ate another phase of 
the points herein made. But perhaps 
an instance of the kind under consid- 
eration, that has scarcely commanded 
a thought until quite recently, is one 
that promises to be the most remark- 
able in the world's history. This Amer- 
ican nation of ours that has so startled 
the activities of all other nations with- 
in the last twelve months, and clearly 
bids fair to be the greatest civilizing and 
the grandest christianizing power the 
whole world has ever known, undoubt- 
edly had its origin in the persecution of 
the Engli.sh Puritan. It was the Puritan 
that gave spirit and virility to this na- ' 
tion. and the Puritan was driven 



10 



from his island home and forced to a 
new continent, to build up a new na- 
tion the destiny of which it is impossi- 
ble to conseive. How little was sus- 
pected then chat seeds were sown that 
would bring forth, in the early twenti- 
eth century, a christian power that 
would surpass that of the mother coun- 
try and becoine the dominating- civiliz- 
ing- influemce of the earth? 

We might here allude to an illustra- 
tion with opposite results. Four cen- 
turies ago, Spain, the most powerful 
nation of Europe was a center of cul- 
ture and refinement. It led in com- 
merce and discoveries. Its naval 
and military power was the admiration 
as well as the dread of the world. 
Ferdinand and Isabella were among 
the most enlightened rulers of the age. 
Their statesmen were men of capacity 
and their purpose was to lay the foun- 
dations, after the union of Castile and 
Aragon, of agreat and beniticent king- 
dom. By no stretch of the imagina- 
tion can it be held that the best Span- 
ish intelligence of that age deliberate- 
ly contemplated national suicide. Yet 
nothing could more surely have pi'o- 
duced this result than the wholesale 
extirpation of the Jews and the banish- 
ment of the Moriscoes from the coun- 
try. The one class represented the 
trade intsrests of the nation, and the 
other the skilled labor. It left the 
country without capital and without 
artisans. Had it not been for the vast 
wealth poured in by the new world 
the national decay would have been 
far more rapid. 

To return now to our own national 
history. We have not much ripened 
fruit to show. We can hardly say 
that the pilgrim fathers would not 
have braved the dangers of the new 
world, if they could have been fore- 
seen. They might have done so. They 
were maae of that kind of material. 
There is more doubt perhaps in case of 
the settlers of Jamestown. In the case 



of our Revolutionary fathers thei'e is al- 
so doubt. It seems marvelous now that 
they dared to rebel. They knew neith- 
er their own strength nor that of the 
mother country. From every rational 
standpoint the odds were against them. 
With justice on their side and their 
lives in their hands they went to bat- 
battle for independence. What this 
really meant was ill understood when 
Paul Revere made his midnight ride to 
Lexington. It was imperfectly under- 
stood for a long time afterwards. It 
was simply a combination of circum 
stances that prevented Great Britain 
from bringing its full power against 
the rebellious colonies that enabled 
them to conquer. It is safe to say how- 
ever that the Revolutionary fathers 
could have had no comprehensicn of 
what the United States would become 
in a century aftei the adoption of the 
constitution. If tney could not con- 
ceive the material advancement we 
wei'e to make, no more could they 
imagine the new phases oifr civilization 
would assume before the opening of 
the twentieth century. What to do 
with the slavery system that had be- 
come fastened upon the colonies, was 
the great problem of the day. It con- 
tinued for more than seventy years to 
overshadow every other question, and 
finally it brought into action a new 
party organization whose destiny was 
to effect its ultimate downfall. The 
growth of this party affords another 
example in American history of this 
unconscious cerebration to which we 
ha/e alluded. 

While there was a class of extreme 
abolitionists who were willing to g-o 
to any length in opposition to slavery, 
we believe it to be quite certain that if 
the organizers of the republican party 
could have foreseen in 18.55, all that 
was to follow within ten year from that 
date, the party would simply never 
have been organized. 



11 



In this connection there occurs anoth- 
er thoug-ht along this line. As this 
whole question of slavery has long 
since passed into history, and is no 
longer a question of party politics, we 
assume that we may treat it as past 
history. We shall only aim to touch 
one incident as it bears upon the subtile 
development of events to which we 
have .so far mostly confined this paper. 
The slave holding .states themselves 
were foolhardy in rushing into the re- 
bellion. Nor would they have done so 
but for false hopes that were held out 
to them by northern sympathizers 
with the slave system. Slavery was 
abolished by war, not directly, but in- 
cidentally. It is curious to note some 
facts in this connection. There were 
a few northern men of much promi- 
nence upon whom the rebellious states 
relied. One of these was Edwin M. 
Stanton who entered Buchanan's cabi- 
net, and did more to save the union be- 
fore the inauguration of Lincoln than 
any other one man. This was a blow 
to the southern cause, as severe as it 
was unexpected. Another was Stephen 
A. Douglas who promptly declared for 
the Union, but died when the war had 
hardly begun. 

But there was one other character 
more in touch with the southern leaders 
than either of these. Today that name 
occupies a strange place in American 
history. Some two years ago there was 
unveiled in the city of Chicago, the 
largest equestrian statue in the Unit- 
ed States. It was of a soldier who had 
won laurels on many a heroic field. 
Perhaps no other soldier had a firmer 
hold upon the hearts of the people at 
that time than John A. Logan. And 
that popularity he retained, especially 
with the veterans of the aimy until his 
death. 

He had been a life-long aggressive 
supporter of the slave system. If the 
men who were working for the ex- 
tension of slave territory, depended 



more upon any one northern sympa- 
thizer than another, that man was John 
A. -Logan, They believed he had the 
power and they relied ,upon him to 
create a division in the north. Yet no 
one, with all his deyotion to the slave 
power, did more, possibly no one did 
so mucn to overthrow it. Not any nor 
all the abolitionists of New England 
did more. 

Garrison and Phillips and Sumner 
labored lor a purpose. They sought a 
definite end, and that end was the aboli- 
tion of slavery which was anchored 
in the constitution. It might have 
been reached m time. Not certainly 
during the present century by their 
methods. 

Slavery was abolished by war. Lo- 
gan's influence in abolition was the 
work of a two-edged sword. He was a 
leader, a representative, far more -than 
either Stanton or Douglas, of a small 
class of northern men devoted to slav- 
ery, who by alluring promises led the 
slave states into rebellion. He intro- 
duced bills into the Illinois legislature 
and secured their passage that made 
any colored man in that free state but 
little better than a slave. His course 
in congress was of the same general 
character, so that the slave power, as 
it was called then, trusted him implic- 
ity. 

It is not improbable that in those 
troublous days, during the clo.sing 
weeks of Buchanan's administration, 
the war might have been averted, had 
northern men like Logan joined early 
with Stanton and Douglas in defense 
of the union. Southern hopes must 
have been checked at least. But great 
numbers hesitated, and among them 
Logan. His position was doubtless to 
inim a trying one. As has been said 
his sympathies were, and always had 
been with the south. It is certain that 
at one time he contemplated raising a 
company in southern Illinois to aid in 
the rebellion. Later on he was led to 



l:.' 



a change of irtind. This was throug-h 
the influence of Stephen A. Douglas, 
but it was not until the battle of Bull 
Run, nearly six months aftei- the war 
had practically opened that the die 
was finallj' cast. From that time on 
Gen. Logan wielded his sword for the 
union cause with all the vigor he had 
before displayed in favor of slavery. 
In other words he fought valiantly to 
put down the rebellion, "that all his in- 
fluence previously had, unconseiously 
helped to bring about, and with that 
downfall followed the abolition of the 
slave system he had so vigorously up- 
held. With any partisan thought in 
mind the revival of themes like this 
and of so recent date would certainly 
be out of nlace before a society such as 
this. It is not easy to handle reminis- 
cent subjects of this character even 
when they have pa.ssed into history. 
Partisan feelings cast their shadows a 
long way behind, but with a judgment 
sufficiently philosophical one may profit 
largely by delving into fields even re- 
cently tilled. 

But little can we gain of immediate 
benefit from all that has .so far been 
said unless we can learn the lesson we 
have intended to illustrate. If I cor- 
rectly understand the underlying pur- 
pose of this society it is something 
more than to make a fad of the Ameri- 
can Revolution. It, and other patriotic 
societies have more important work to 
do. We need not flatter ourselves that 
this age is very greatly different from 
those that have passed. 

There have been changes in methods 
and an accelerated pace is manifest. 
Thei-e is clearly a difference in our 
civilization. The quality is higher. 
More has been granted to this age and 
more will be expected. An infinity 
of future lies before mankind. Democ- 
racy is in the ascendant but not yet 
triumphant. Religious liberty does 
not prevail. The rights of man are 
not recognized, not even among the 



most civilized and enlightened of na- 
tions. The world is still struggling in 
darkness, even though the light seems 
now and then to be breaking. The 
work of ev^ry historical society and 
every civilizing influence should lend 
its aid. All philanthropic and educa- 
tional bodies desire the upbuilding of 
the human family. 

The sincere purpose of all organiza- 
tions that claim to seek the alleviation 
of mankind is not to be lightly ques- 
tioned. 

The greatest need of this age, as it 
has been of other ages, is a broader 
and higher intellectual light. '■'■Liclit, 
licht, mere licht," is said to have been 
the despairing cry of Goethe. Such has 
been the despairing cry of the ages. 

If it is true that history teaches a 
lesson, how then are we to take it 
home to ourselves as a natiDn. Within 
the past year an epoch has opened in 
American history. One hundred years 
ago today the battle of Lexington was 
fought. It opened the fire of the 
American Revolution. Some thought 
it a mistake, a terrible calamity. Good 
men conscientiously opposed it. Phi- 
lanthropists like Benjamin Thompson, 
afterwards Count Rum ford, could not 
favor it. Bitter antagonisms grew up 
not only in American but in England, 
where strong elements favored the colo- 
nists But these were mere idcidents. 
They exist wherever conflicts exist. 
Opposing influences haye been present 
in all our wars. Well meaning opposi- 
tion. Good men, scholarly men, states- 
men, senators, men in hig'h places, are 
present examples. Their antagonism 
is not serious, but it is illustrative. The 
individual developments are the same 
now as ever. National developments 
change. The civilizing- force moves 
onward. It is interesting as well as 
instructive to note its steps. 

Reference has already beeu made to 
the Puritan movement That move- . 
ment was the crvstallization of what 



i:^. 



may be called the Cromwellian idea. 
We want to dwell somewhat upon this 
point, for out of this Puritan move- 
ment have grown the most powerful 
civilizing foi-ces the world has yet 
known and whose future is now but 
dimly realized. 

Oliver Cromwell has no place in 
Westminister. His name never ap- 
pears among the rulers of England: 
Even the old Puritar, both in England 
and America has largely dropped from 
the popular memory. Yet the Puritan 
influence has never been so powerful as 
today. Cromwellianism is doubtless the 
greatest embodiment .of the Puritan 
idea. Up to his time there had been 
little segregation of Anglo Saxon pow- 
er. There is no complete recognized 
segregation now. But it began to form 
about the Elizabethan era. It began 
by persecution and by disintregration. 
The bi'oken and despised portions 
were forced ott", or allowed to "seek 
homes in a new and unknown land. 
They built up a new nation with high 
ideals, i-elig-ious, political, social. As 
it grew into power and recognition its 
reflex influence was felt in the mother 
country. It was accelerated hy the 
liberal thought that had been left be- 
hind. The American iReyolution, not 
only gave liberty to the American colo- 
nies, bringing to 1 hem a new and vig- 
orous growth, bnt it also ser'^ed to 
broaden English thought. English 
liberty surely received' a new impetus. 
Puritan influence had its effect upon 
the English church and is still at 
work. In the new America the same 
English church began gradually to 
have its effect upon the Puritan 
thought. And so the two nations, both 
christian, and both liberty loying, be- 
gan to draw into close union. As great 
national powers thej' were both Anglo 
Saxon in character. United they were 
able! to be the arbiters of the world. 

The late Spanish war brought these 
two great powers together. We need 



not here go into the causes of this war. 
We prefer to deal with conditions as 
they appear at present and in the 
distant norizon. 

There is much useless discussion in 
regard to national expansion. The 
very thought is trifling. The war is 
said to have been one of humanity be- 
cause of the sufferinrj- of thousands of 
people in Cuba. There is something 
in this, a trifle only. 

Apparently we have reached an ep- 
och in the wold's history. As a- people 
we are changing our national policy, 
not in regard to territorial expansion, 
for we have always done that asoppor- 
tunit3' offered But we are lending 
our power and influence for the exten- 
sion of civilization. In doing this we 
are but keeping step to the music of 
the ages. We are extending the field 
of christian influence. It is clearly 
not the studied thought of man. The 
christian recognizes in it the hand of 
God. Others will say it is the natural 
outgrowth of material conditions which 
unwittingly is equivalent to the chris. 
tian idea. Others say "Manifest Des- 
tiny." Whatever it may be clearly our 
duty is to accept the situation which no 
power seems able to change and bravely 
meet the responsibilities as they arise. 
They will not be light. We shall need 
the highest degree of patriotism, the 
greatest wisdom and the wisest Chris- 
tianity and civilization. The very 
thought of religious and political liber- 
ty implies it. If territorial expansion 
follows as a necessary sequence, such 
necessity must have recognition, and 
instead of playing the part of a Jonah 
the American citizen must meet his 
duties as becomes men and heroes. 

The flag of this western Anglo-Saxon 
nation has been chosen to lead a world 
wide christianizing movement, not 
yet within the comprehension of men. 
It is a duty handed down from Ply- 
mouth Rock. It is the more refined 



14 



and universal Cromwellian idea of 
Christianity. 

This flag- is the symbol of advanced 
civilization. In peace it has been the 
symbol of commercial progress, of per- 
sonal freedom and relig-ious libert3^ It, 
is the sjanbol of National and personal 
energ-y, of refinement and cultivation, 
and modest worth. 

In war it is the symbol of National 
power, determination and self reliance. 
In victory it is the svmbol of a g-ener- 
osity and chivalry hitherto unknown 
among the nations of the earth. The 
American Flag is symbolic of more than 
all this. It is .symbolic of a new Na- 
tional g-enius, — a-genius as varied and 
novel in character as it is marvelous 
in strength. Something has been heard 
of the wonderful capacity of American 
mind before this. The world saw some- 
thing of it during the war of the rebel- 
lion. It was regarded then, and since, 
as exceptional, spasmodic, ephemeral. 
Wha^^ever the old world nations saw 
th.>n of American characteristics they 
regarded as temporary or abnormal. 
The last year has brought new light to 
the world. 

The old nations have cherished the 
idea that no government could be a 
war power without a large standing 
army. They have had an idea that 
any nation would be weak in diplom- 
acy whei-e no class existed that had 
not years of aitful diplomatic exper- 
ience. Our little war with Spain has 
set the woi'ld a' wondering. It has set 
some of our own people a thinking. 
The ability of the Nation to meet these 
g-reat emergencies we call our reserved 
power. But in what does it con.sist? 
Where does it lie dormant, 3'^ear after 
year, until some great event brings it 
into action? 

When the conditions are threaten- 
ing we are wont to ask ourselves where 
are the men for the times. Where are 
our great statesmen, our diplomats, our 
admirals, our generals'? The crisis 



comes on and then come the men to 
meet it. A .seafaring man, generally 
unknown, sends out a report from Ma- 
nila Bay that resounds throughout the 
world. Others destroy an entire fleet, 
in an hour or two at Santiago, where 
skill and daring did far more than 
Drake and Hawkins did against the 
same national enemy before the powers 
of the air stepped in to finish the de- 
destruction of the Armada. An un- 
known country lawyer is called to take 
the helm of State and proves himself 
the equal of any in skilled diplomacy. 
Another country lawyer from Ohio, 
comes up as another once did from Illi- 
nois, the first man in the nation, and 
with a firmness and sagacity not 
equalled since the da3^s of Lincoln laj's 
his hand upon the unsteady elements, 
«— the jingoes of the Nation, and holds 
them in leash, until the time for ac- 
tion comes. It is human greatness, 
spring'ing apparently from nowhere. Tt 
is the Anglo-Saxon type of Minerva 
springing fully armed from the head 
of love. And where is all this great- 
ness, this reserved power, born and 
nurtured, and kept ready to appear at 
the Nation's call? We answer that it is 
bred and preserved in the greater aver- 
age intelligence and education of the 
American people. Its foundation lies 
down in the christian sentiment of the 
Puritan descendants. It is born in our 
.system of common schools. It is an 
outgrowth of our newspapers and mag- 
azines that go into every household 
and make every home in the land a 
forum for discussion of public affairs. 
From this substratum we build that 
broader education of the masses that 
marks a difference between this and 
other peoples. It is this higher and 
broader education of the masses, cou- 
pled with our sj^stem of self-govern- 
ment that gives the naturally superior 
minds of our people that alertness of 
perception that enables them to meet 
all conditions as they arise. 

The old fogies of the old world and of 



the new world talk of our t4*aditions, 
It is an old world theory this worship 
of political traditions. The spirit of 
the American Nation has due regard 
for tradition and learns the lesson it 
has to teach. But it is not to be handi- 
capped by usage and tradition. It meets 
conditions as they appear. If the Amer- 
ican Indian will be civilized and chris- 
tianized, we are ready and willing to 
do it. If not, he simply becomes ex- 
terminated. But we do not do it as 
Spain exterminated the Jews and the 
Moi-iscoes, the Caribbean Indians; the 
Aztecs, or the natives of Peru. 

So we will bo able to meet every de- 
mand in the regeneration of the Philip- 
pines. It is the call of humanity, of 
civilization, of Christianity. We are 
ready and able to meet this call. We 
declare this when we raise the Ameri-^ 
can flag over new territorj'. The prom - 
ise of the American flag is current 
throughout the earth today. 

That promise may prove to be that 
500,000,000 Asiatics shall not ruthlessly 
be torn asunder by grasping and 
greedy continental Europe. The Ameri- 
llag planted in the Philippines sup- 
ported by England means just this. It 
indicates peace, not war. 

The great English nation has with- 
in the last twelve months come 
to realize all this as never before. 
This first branch of the Anglo-Saxon 
power has heretofore carried on its 
christian civilizing work alone. Heath- 
en India and savage Africa have been 
brought to a higher plane. A century 
of unaided effort has been given to 
this woi-k, while the American branch 
of the Anglo-Saxon race has been pre- 
paring itself for what now appears to 
be its great destiny. 

During this century two notable 
movements have been going forward. 
While the United States has been dor- 
mant neai'ly all the continental Euro, 
pean nations have been reaching out for 
portions of Asia and Africa. Wherever 



an opportunity offered .some national 
octopus has sought to fasten its tenta- 
cles. It would be difficult to point out a 
case of this kind inspired by or accom- 
panied with any sort of christian pur- 
pose. A thought of a better civilization 
has had little place in. all these efforts. 
In the case of Spain its colonizing 
schemes, began much earlier, are too 
well known to need further reference. 

The time has now come when no 
more reallj' savage or so-called unoccu- 
pied or ungoverned country can be 
foulid. In consequence every consider- 
able nation of continental Europe is 
today casting about for weaker nations 
to plunder, either in. Africa or Asia. 
China seems to be the favorite victim 
of all. Thus we .seem to approach the 
culmination of the first movement. 

The second movement may be found in 
the gradual drawing together of the 
two Anglo-Saxon families. For more 
than a century thei'e has been a de- 
crease in national, political and sectar- 
ian antagonisms. The cavalier and 
the puritan have met and understand 
such other better. The I'oyalist and 
the democrat are not so far apart. 
The churchman and the dissenter are 
more oolerant. Even the non-con- 
formist has grown to be something of 
a ritualist. Even the great Wesleyan 
movement, an event that might in it- 
self afford a chapter on unconscious 
cerebration in history, had its influence 
in modifying the English church. 

And so there is today more of chris- 
tian and national unity between Eng- 
land and America than ever before. If 
therefore we read historjr aright, there 
is more in this than has yet appeared 
en the surface. Not the war with Spain 
nor the present war with the Fillipinos, 
can be regarded as a war of humani- 
ty in the usual limited sense. Up 
to this time only preliminary steps 
have been taken. It is hoped that no 
more may be needed. At all events it 
is almost certain that the utter dis- 



16 



membennent of Asia by brute force, 
with no civilizing and christianizing 
purpose, will not be tolerated. The 
power to prevent this will be Anglo- 
Saxon, England and the United States 

combined. 

The present condition of these east- 
ern peoples is n ot popularly understood. 
There is not one, probably, that is not 
on a decline. Not one is really chris- 
tianized — not one that has religious 
strength. Even- the Moslem faith in 
Arabia and Turkey is without power to 
preserve and protect itself. Persia is 
liable to be overrun at any time. The 
inroads upon China by Russia, France, 
Italy and Germany have no significance 
beyond that of ruthless seizure and 

robbery. 

The vast difference between the colo- 
nizing work of England and that of 
continental Europe must tiot be over- 
looked. English colonies are remark- 
ably independent. They are civilized 
and christianized. Arts and industries 
are encouiaged. Trade and manu- 
factures follow. One can hardly re- 
call a single colony of any continental 
nation that receives any siich consider- 
ation, while the English colonies have 
always been more or less under hu- 
manitarian influences. Missionary and 
educational institutions, very different 
from those tliat followed the track of 
Spanish settlement have gone hand in 
hand with British colonization. Here- 
in may be seen the impress of the Pur- 
itan. It may be said that trade and 
commerce and ambition have inspired 
British policy. Confessedly so to a great 
extent. But never as in the invariable 
case with Spain to the sacrifice of all 
humanitarian principle. The Anglo- 
Saxon is practical. It may be that the 
humane policy is the best political pol- 
icy. Pity if it were not so. Better it 
certainly is than the Spanish policy of 
priestcraft, robbery and extermination. 
Better indeed than a more liberal colon, 
ial policy in which none but mercenary 
considerations enter. 



The United States has not been a 
colonizing nation. Anglo-Saxon Amer- 
ica has been more than one hundred 
years in training as a national athlete, 
seeking no combats, believing in hu- 
man freedom, shirking no responsibili- 
ty. No conflict with Spain was sought. 

Abraham Lincoln spared no more ef- 
fort to prevent war with the South, 
than President McKinley did with 
Spain. No other nation similarly situ- 
ated would have done so much. No 
war with the Fillipinos was contem- 
plated. It followed as an unavoidable 
incident. Altogether this whole Span- 
ish affair affords another probable illus- 
tration of unconscious cerebration in 
history. We say probable illustration 
because final results are by no means 
in view. There is every indication that 
we are on the verge of tremendous 
events, the like of which the world has 
never known. We may have no belief 
in manifest destiny. We may be peace 
loving as we are. But no people has 
ever yet been able to resist the powers 
that be. The events of the past j'ear 
could not haye been avoided. We can- 
not escape the conditions of the pres- 
ent without opening the way for un- 
told calamities. They must be met. 

As there is no course for this nation 
to follow than that into which it has 
unconsciously drifted the duty of every 
American patriot seems clear. In view 
of all historic precedents and in Lhe 
light of modei-n civilization, our indi- 
vidual and national duty would seem to 
be plain. There is no occasion for 
captious argument and faultfinding. 
What is just the wisest policy may not 
always be clear. But the hands of the 
government in what appears to be the 
wisest will be upheld by every clear- 
minded patriot. Responsibilities may 
be great. They have been great be- 
fore, but in no emergency has the na- 
tion failed in its ability to meet tliem. 
It will not fail now. 



LIBRftRY O^oWfS? 

iii 

"*^ 527 938 5 



